Summary
A subsequent purchaser of land acquired in Delhi obtained a High Court declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court overruled the State's objection to maintainability and ignored its case that possession had been taken on 16.07.2007 by on-the-spot proceedings. It rested lapse solely on non-tender of compensation to the petitioner. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside. Under DDA v. Godfrey Phillips, which considered Manav Dharam Trust, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse. On merits, under Indore Development Authority, non-tender of compensation does not cause lapse once possession has been taken.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent purchaser may maintain a writ petition claiming lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and whether non-tender of compensation causes lapse where possession was taken in 2007.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013A subsequent purchaser cannot invoke it; and, per Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both non-possession and non-payment, possession being taken by drawing a memorandum on the spot. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2)
Held
- Following DDA v. Godfrey Phillips, which considered Manav Dharam Trust relied on by the High Court, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or claim lapse, and the High Court's contrary view on maintainability is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2, 2.1)
- The declaration of lapse solely for non-tender of compensation, ignoring the State's case that possession was taken by on-the-spot proceedings on 16.07.2007, is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2, 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8930 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 30.07.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2674 of 2017 set aside; no costs.